bq. one set of hbase binaries that will work against multiple hadoops I would be interested to know what tests are / will be performed against 3.0.0-alpha1 (using artifacts built against 2.7.1).
Thanks On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. > > The goal is to produce one set of hbase binaries that will work against > multiple hadoops such as the 2.7 and 3.0.0-alpha1 versions, but > preferentially tested against and likely including binaries from a stable > hadoop version. > > Up until recently, compiling against the hadoop 3 profile fails because of > compilation issues and licensing issues, Another issue, HBASE-16711 has > already landed which fixed compilation against hadoop2 and hadoop3. What > remains is on the short proposed list makes sure licensing enforcers are > satisfied correctly and getting build infrastructure precommit checks in > place so we don't inadvertently introduce new problems. > > Jon. > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jon: > > Once the goals you outlined below are achieved, would user be able to use > > build artifacts compiled against hadoop 2.7.1 on a cluster deployed with > > hadoop > > 3.0.0-alpha1 ? > > > > Cheers > > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I'd like to get the -Dhadoop.profile=3.0 at least to compiling and > > passing > > > licensing working for the first hbase alpha (or whatever we end up > > calling > > > it) > > > > > > I'll propose these items: > > > 1) peg to one of the recent hadoop alphas (hadoop 3.0.0-alpha1 is the > > most > > > recent). currently we are against 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT. > > > 2) add precompile checks against a hadoop 3.x (HBASE-16733) > > > 3) get 'mvn test install -Dskiptests' to succeed without licensing > issues > > > (HBASE-16712) > > > 4) Have a job setup in jenkins so that we can gain insight and burn > down > > > unit tests failures against hadoop3. > > > > > > These items have a good chance of landing in the next week or two. > > > > > > Other related issues that are nice to have but wouldn't block an hbase > > > alpha include: > > > 1) having no always failing unit tests against hadoop3 (HBASE-6581) > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > Jon. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Stephen Jiang <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, All, > > > > > > > > It is time to discuss about the schedule of HBase 2.0 release. HBase > > 2.0 > > > > release is a big major release. When we release 1.0, we had 0.99 as > > dev > > > > preview/beta release. We should do something similar for the 2.0 > > > release. > > > > > > > > Matteo and I talked about this. We think about that we need some > > > > Alpha/Beta milestones before the RC and final Release-to-Web 2.0 > > release. > > > > > > > > I don't know whether there is any discussion on this community about > > the > > > > Alpha/Beta release criteria. My proposal is that once we cut the > > > branch-2, > > > > we should only have new features that are absolutely needed for major > > > > release (festures cannot be added in minor release) and those > features > > > > should be "almost ready". For Alpha releases, we can still accept > > these > > > > kind of features; for Beta release, only bug fixes and performance > > > > improvement on existing features (should we also accept existing > > feature > > > > improvement in Beta? Maybe Beta 1, Not in Beta 2 - that is my take). > > > > > > > > This is a big release and requires a lot of work from Release > > Manager. I > > > > asked Matteo whether I could help to be some kind of backup / > > > hot-standby / > > > > assistant RM. I think he is very happy to have someone to share some > > RM > > > > duties. Thus, I will help make this 2.0 release as smooth as > possible. > > > > > > > > Here is a tentative plan: > > > > - For now, we are thinking of creating branch-2 middle of this month > > and > > > > have 2.0-Alpha1 release at the end of this month or begin of Nov. > The > > > > definition of Alpha1 is that we could deploy to a cluster and it can > do > > > > some simple CRUD and table DDLs; and not crash (of course, UT > passing). > > > > > > > > - Then we will have 2.0-Alpha2 in 4-6 weeks after Apha1. It would > hold > > > > higher bar. We will run some IT tests to make sure that it would > > > > functional. > > > > > > > > - At that time, we will lock down and not allow any new features, > every > > > 4-6 > > > > weeks, we will have a Beta release (my realistic guess is that we > would > > > hit > > > > the US Christmas holiday at that time, so first Beta would take > longer > > > than > > > > 6 weeks). For Beta release, we would fix bugs and do performance > > tuning. > > > > Planning to have 2 Betas. (Question: in the past, do we need vote to > > > have > > > > a Beta release?) > > > > > > > > - Once the code are in the stable stage, then we will have RCs and > vote > > > for > > > > the final release. > > > > > > > > Please let us know whether this is a reasonable approach that will > make > > > the > > > > release successful. > > > > > > > > Currently, we are aware of the following on-going new features for > 2.0: > > > new > > > > Assignment Manager, backup/restore, off-heap, protobuff 3, Hybrid > > Logical > > > > Clock, and maybe AsyncRegion / C++ client). If you have a feature > that > > > > wants to be part of 2.0 release, please send discussion to dev > > community > > > > and we can make a call on accepting/rejecting. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Stephen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > // [email protected] // @jmhsieh > > > > > > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > // [email protected] // @jmhsieh >
